Now the argument from guns rights activists is that we need more guns to protect us from the guns they helped allow flood into our society, finding their way into the hands of criminals. The flaws in this “logic” couldn’t be more obvious. Keep pushing for less regulations on guns, causing more and more guns to flood into our society, which undoubtedly results in criminals having easier access to obtaining guns. And, of course, what’s the answer to deal with the threat of criminals who’ve gotten these guns? More guns. It’s a perpetual cycle. Right now there’s roughly 300 million guns in the United States. Considering our population is only around 314 million, that’s nearly one gun for every man, woman and child in this country. So, my question to gun nuts is simple, “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”
To answer that question one must ignore the simple math that tells us that the more guns we allow to flow into our neighborhoods, the more gun violence we see. But these gun nuts constantly claim we need “more guns” to make us safe. Well, what’s the magic number then? Because we’re damn near at a 1:1 ratio for American citizens and guns, and that sure as hell doesn’t seem to be decreasing gun violence. 400 million? 500 million? A billion? How many guns will it take to decrease gun violence in the United States? Wait, I know what some of these gun nuts think. They’re preparing for an overthrow of the government. Here’s a rule I propose: If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.
After all, isn’t it gun rights advocates who often talk about mental health being the leading factor to gun violence? Well, any fool that thinks a bunch of people wearing Walmart-bought camouflage pants and owning a few rifles are going to wage war against the most powerful military that’s ever existed in all of humankind, is insane. But ignoring these lunatics who think we own guns to overthrow our government, how many guns will it take before we see a decrease in gun violence? That’s all I’m asking. Because that’s generally what many gun nuts claim will “make us safer” – more guns. But seeing that we have around 300 million already here in the United States, and gun violence tends to increase as the number of guns in the country goes up, it’s just a question I’d like these people to answer. Should we go back to the days of the wild west when everyone had a gun holstered to their hip? Are you trying to tell me gun violence was low back then? Really? If you read back in history, one of the first things many law enforcement officials did to clean up some of these towns (because of out of control gun violence) was ban the carrying of firearms within town limits. But now these people want a return to something that even in the 1800’s they knew was a problem? It makes absolutely no sense. Though it brings me back to my question, with around 300 million guns in this country (probably more), and gun violence that continues to lead every developed nation on Earth… How many guns will it take before “good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns?” Because what reality actually tells us is that more guns actually lead to more violence – not less. Occam's Razor, Folks.
Username after rich socialist who never worked a day in his life.
94% of gun deaths are caused by illegal guns. Limiting legal guns isn't the answer.
Most gun crime is in gun-free zones. Might as well wear a sign that says "I'm unarmed. Shoot me and be prosecuted"
You assume that "gun nuts" are all for an overthrow of the government. That's not true.
2/3rds of gun owners want their guns to protect themselves, while 50% want it for hunting.
Areas with gun control then usually kill those who can't defend themselves.
13,000 gun deaths. 300 million guns. Do the math. Guns don't kill like you say.
And once again, if gun control works, why does Cleveland, an obviously crime-infested city, have one of the strictest gun control laws out there?
Because criminals obey the laws.
Most gun crimes are crimes of passion.
@Heterodox: Well then, I assume you do not understand the point that there is approximately a 1:1 ration of guns presently in the US now and gun folks are crying, "We need more guns". And you are talking about a hypothetical situation of one person in fifty having a gun as opposed to fifty people having fifty guns? That doesn't even make sense or relate to the situation, it is completely off the cuff hypothetical. I am talking about real statistics and real situations that exist right now. That is why I questioned your comprehension skills. Or are you trying to deflect from the truth to make another point? What are you trying to say? You don't like the stats, so you are going in a different direction in hopes a diversion will somehow direct the conversation away from reality? This isn't Fox News, it is a valid discussion. And if you are a gun aficionado, good news, you are in effect "winning". Because the US is inundated with guns both legal and illegal. You should be ecstatic. Also, there are virtually no regulations or background checks, so why do you need to invent a different scenario to try to come out looking somehow better? You are really confounding?
The Christian: I beg to disagree. The US has the most gun violence in the industrialized world as well as gun murders, so apparently guns are not preventing anything. What about mass shootings? And not to be argumentative, but civilian gun owners do nothing to help in murders or mass shootings but to confound the police and cause their own demise or worse. And may I ask how you can use the moniker "Christian" and advocate a lethal weapon and the use of violence and not follow the teachings of Christ? Is that not the height of hypocrisy? That seems to be the dichotomy slavery the right wing conservatism is abiding to in this country...Using the bible as a book to cherry pick through to thinly veil their hatred and violent intentions.
You refuse to dispute facts. If these civilian gun owners were in public spaces with their guns, and no gun zones were abolished, then the shooting rate would go down. If anyone and everyone has a gun, then you would be less likely to shoot some place up. Just off the top of my head- Columbine. I reviewed the footage a hundred times. One person with a gun could have stopped it. Pulse- a no gun zone. Had someone had a gun, there would be 39 more innocent people on this earth. Sandy Hook- one teacher with a gun could have saved them. Am I saying that we should make guns common and free? No. We need stricter laws, you cannot have been on an FBI watch list or the no-fly list, excreta, you cannot have a past with drugs, you have to pass a mental health test, closing the gun show loopholes, making guns still available but harder to get. This would have prevented Matteen and Dylan Roof from committing a shooting.
We could easily remedy the problem with guns, but you refuse to accept any possibility that says that we can save lives with guns. 67% and 50% of gun owners have the intent to either hunt or protect themselves.
Most crimes are crimes of passion, heat-of-the-moment crimes. Like a guy gets drunk and his friend starts harassing him. Gun is nearby, you're drunk, you shoot. I mean, a knife would do the trick too, but the gun is closer. 94% of gun crimes with illegal guns, limiting legal ones just puts more innocent people at risk.
I mean, you could make a bomb out of a few lighters. I don't hear anything about "Lighter Control". Drunk drivers kill with cars. I don't hear "Car Control".
And because I am a Christian. And I wear that label with pride. I believe that if an action saves even one life, it is as though he has saved the whole world. I am not a hateful person. Some members of my faith happen to be hateful. I disavow them and I follow the teachings of Jesus as closely as possible. I refuse to pass judgment. I mean, I'm gay, I have advocated for transgender rights, I have defended African Americans from attacks, I defend non-fundamentalist non-extremist Muslims, I am, in fact, likely less hateful than you.
We have a high number of people and most other countries are strict enough to inhibit gun deaths while keeping guns legal, but with similar laws to what most gun rights enthusiasts are now advocating for. Most other countries don't have such a high drug problem. Drugs, alcohol, and other substances factor into most homicides.
@karlmarx59, You don't think dispersion is a factor? ||@foxxhajti, Not entirely sure what stats you are looking at (because you haven't listed a source, heck no one has), but let's pretend for a moment that you are correct. It means nothing unless you compare it to total deaths. I mean, whether I am shot to death, beaten to death with a hammer, ran over by a car, or die from the side effects of a prescription drug I'm still dead. Of course, if we look at it in relation to total deaths, we realize there are much bigger issues...
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2004. (Available at the following Internet website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm).
@karlmarx59 My country itself has stricter type of gun laws, although we have about 11.9 firearms per 100 people. Our crime rate is way lower than the United States'. If not completely strict gun laws, at least the US, should put a few restrictions. It amazes me how easy it is to buy a gun in America. I'm glad you agree.
It’s a curious feature of American life that when four innocents are killed by a gunman in Chattanooga, or when a young white supremacist opens fire inside a historic AME Church in Charleston, we talk about loosening gun safety laws.
In the aftermath of this week’s murders, Donald Trump managed the near-impossible—sounding like a mainstream Republican politician—when he argued, “Get rid of gun free zones. The four great marines who were just shot never had a chance.” He is hardly alone in proposing this solution to the epidemic of gun violence. “These terrible tragedies seem to occur in gun-free zones,” said Rand Paul in January. “The Second Amendment “serves as a fundamental check on government tyranny,” Ted Cruz has said.
Story Continued Below
But if these Second Amendment-purists really think that guns make places safer, if they really think that guns are an important check on government and safeguard of liberty, then why do so many of them keep their workplace—the U.S. Capitol—free of firearms?
For almost two centuries and until very recently, ordinary citizens had free run of the Capitol. Ironically, as Congress has become less hospitable to gun safety laws, and as conservative Republican legislators have grown more strident in their desire to see citizens carry open and concealed weapons everywhere—in churches and schools, on college campuses, at bars and restaurants—the one venue that has grown more gun-free, more secure and more restrictive is the building they work in.
Until 1983, there were no metal detectors at the entryways to the Capitol. No staff and member identification badges. No requirement that American taxpayers reserve advance tickets, queue up in a subterranean visitors’ center and be guided through a select few rooms of the complex. The only areas truly off limits to non-credentialed individuals were the Senate and House floors, though in extraordinary times, even these rooms became public space.
When Union soldiers converged on Washington in the spring of 1861, the Sixth Massachusetts took refuge in the new House and Senate chambers. John Hay, Abraham Lincoln’s young staff secretary, ventured over to inspect the “novel” scene. “The contrast was very painful between the grey haired dignity that filled the Senate Chamber when I saw it last and the present throng of bright-looking Yankee boys,” he observed..” Hay reclined on a leather sofa toward the rear of the chamber and gazed at the “wide-spreading skylights over arching the vast hall like heaven blushed and blazed with gold.” He thought it a fitting place to quarter the troops.
It took extraordinary circumstances for armed militiamen, citizens and congressmen to mingle freely on the House floor. But the stark contrast between now and then raises a poignant issue: Why should Congress be the only gun-free zone in America?
@foxxhajti, Still no sources, though. Anyway, from what I can tell from the provided charts, homicide is practically a non-issue. So, why are we even talking about it or gun related homicides which are an even smaller portion?
Foxxhajti: Thank you. Gun Laws are stricter in my country as well but apparently "The Christian" (no less) feels a lethal weapon is not only a necessity but perfectly within the teachings of Christ to use to kill someone. I am assuming it is ingrained in the American gun culture to perverse the Christian bible to meet the needs of the NRA?
Heterodox: I am not talking about homicides. I am talking about MORE guns making you safer issue. But the fact you dismiss homicide is callus and sociopathic. I believe in my country this would disqualify you from owning any kind of weapon and put you needing a psych eval. I must admit your American gun culture is confounding as is your conspiracies, paranoia, and general hatred of anything not cookie cutter white Christian, middle class. You vow to be a diverse nation and with every generation of immigrants you have a hissy fit of hatred. You claim religious freedom, yet you have splintered protestants into thousands of "churches" all in competition and hating each other and cafeteria choosing bible versus to live by. You claim to be the moral nation and yet you spit on the poor and needy. America is just a violent gun toting hating nation that bullies the world.
Heterodox: Don't waste your time you have made up your mind a long time ago and you are not going to be suddenly enlightened now. I am not going to argue with the likes of you. This is for people who like to discuss ideas with open hearts and minds to make a better world. Not for those who dig in to their bias and prejudices like pestilent children pouting and ranting with closed fist and minds.
Reece: that is a fair assessment for you to say since you are American. But I have not said anything untrue. It would be insincere to pretend the US is the greatest nation when you know it is not. However, your patriotism is awesome.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that the US is the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?!
@Heterodox I've posted graphs, which IS evidence, technically speaking, but I'll send you a few links. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1chqUZHuY6cXYrRYkuE0uwXisGaYvr7durZHJhpLGycs/edit#gid=0
Do I need to list more?
@reece, Yes, to my knowledge America is the greatest nation in the world. However, the American people haven't been vigilant and have allowed corruption to run amuck. If we are to remain the greatest nation, we have to do something about that. || @karlmarx59, What do you consider safe? And, would you trade all of your rights to ensure your safety? I wouldn't.
@reece, Not really a fan of trump, definitely sounds better than Hillary (every word out of her mouth is a lie), but thankfully my vote doesn't mean shit, I live in a completely red state so don't have to bother voting.
@Christian...That seems to be a common leftist ploy. The facts are clear and indisputable, so they attack the messenger. I have lived and seen the facts that the overall effect of gun ownership is good for society. Our framers knew the need for a free people to be armed to defend themselves from tyrannical government.
Tree_of_Death Most gun deaths are suicides.
Think big. Cold you imagine a war zone where only the criminals had guns?
Lolodude12321 There will always be bad people. In America, in cities where guns are restricted crime is high whereas cities that allow conceal and carry have low crime rates. If guns were illegal crime would increase because criminals would still be getting them. Criminals would get guns illegally so you'd have unarmed good guys and armed criminals. Also, you might need a gun to defend your self from someone without a gun. If the criminal is stronger than he doesn't need a gun to overpower you.
More guns in the hands of law abiding responsible people is a good thing.
@Dilara if there were actually stricter gun laws to begin with, you wouldn't need a firearm to defend yourself in the first place. Can criminals obtain guns illegally? Absolutely. Statistically speaking, first world countries and American states with less guns, have less firearm related deaths. It's too easy to obtain a gun in the US, at least a few restrictions, should be made. Mass shootings are predominantly an American thing, where gun laws are rather liberal. Random civilians are armed, for no reason whatsoever, and you can never know what's going on in their head. What if one of these civilians one day decides to kill himself with his own gun, makes a mass shooting, or decides to kill a specific person? What about drunk/drugged people who have access to weapons, and can easily shoot others or themselves? What about the toddlers that have access to these weapons, and are able to kill others or themselves, without them even knowing what the firearm is? Household gun ownership doubles the risk of homicide and triples the risk of suicide for those with access to firearms. It's also easier for criminals to purchase guns. If not a complete ban, a common-sense gun reform ought to be made.
@Dilara Also, people using guns as self-defense and people not using guns, both are roughly as likely to get injured. Incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent, while for those not using a gun, it was 11 (aka roughly the same). What’s more, is that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent).
I believe that there should be background checks for all gun purchases. But sadly, many criminals all ready have guns. And those criminals aren't turning their guns in. So if we forcibly confiscate guns, criminals will still have them and law abiding people won't. If guns were banned, the same thing would happen. Criminals would get them and law abiding people wouldn't. It could be made harder for criminals to get guns, but it will never be impossible for criminals to get guns. I should also mention that most criminals don't need guns to commit crimes. A 6 foot man could easily over power a 5 foot woman and assault her, in which case she would need a gun.
Karlmarx. Most of the gun owners in America are law abiding and mentally stable. Guns in the hands of law abiding people do keep us safe. The more guns in the hands of criminals the more unsafe we are but the more guns i the hands of law abiding people, the more safe we are. In American cities like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore where guns are heavily restricted crime rates are high. In cities like Plano TX where gun laws are lax and most law abiding people have them crime and violence are low. The more guns in the hands of criminals the more violence. The more guns n the hands of law abiding people the less violence. What matters is who has the gun, not whether the gun is there or not. Guns are used to stop armed and unarmed criminals very often in America.
Cities that allow Conceal and carry permits have lower crimes than cities without. There are many cases where conceal and carry permit holders prevent crimes with their guns.
Tree of death. What matters is who has the guns nit how many there are. More guns in the hands of criminals equaks more violence but more guns in the hands of law abiding people + less violence. In American cities with lots of gun laws crime is high but in cities with less gun laws crime is low. Guns are used to prevent crimes and its god that law abiding people have them. Http://www.Thedenverchannel.Com/news/local-news/denver-police-intruder-shot-killed-by-homeowner
Cities that allow Conceal and carry permits have lower crimes than cities without. There are many cases where conceal and carry permit holders prevent crimes with their guns.
And, coming at this from the perspective of a police officer, I want good people to be armed. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know how common that view is within law enforcement. Not only is it constitutional, but as a practical matter, seeing the dark side of society, most of us realize the citizens we want to protect are already victims by the time we get there. We can't be on every corner, and society can't afford it.
Karlmarx59 Most of Americas gun murders are gang related. Gangsters will get guns regardless. Guns are used to prevent gun crimes and other crimes in America very often. Http://www.Thedenverchannel.Com/news/local-news/denver-police-intruder-shot-killed-by-homeowner
Cities that allow Conceal and carry permits have lower crimes than cities without. There are many cases where conceal and carry permit holders prevent crimes with their guns.
Guns are even used to prevent murder and mass shootings http://kfor.com/2016/06/30/shooter-strikes-3-in-south-carolina-nightclub-stopped-by-concealed-carrier/
"If you check the stats, most countries with the least gun-related crimes, have stricter gun laws." In America cities with lots of gun restrictions have higher crime than cities without. Guns are frequently used to prevent crimes in America. http://kfor.com/2016/06/30/shooter-strikes-3-in-south-carolina-nightclub-stopped-by-concealed-carrier/ Your country might have lower crime for a reason other than guns.
Karl Marx "Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home" Could there be a third variable? I agree we do need background checks. I would say that it is hypocritical for people like Hillary Clinton to say that guns are bad yet have armed body guards. The DC capital is free of firearms and has high crime. And congress is not the only gun free zone in America.
More guns in the hands of law abiding people = less homicides. Thats what crime/murder stats from American cities show.There is nothing wrong with owning a gun for protection.
Where do you get this idea that America is racist and overly religious? Its a big place and not all of it is like that. I am not religious, but theres nothing wrong with it
@Dilara, States with more guns do have indeed a higher homicide rate (Source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph). Guns are barely used for self-defense in the US (Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188). Developed countries with less guns, in most cases, have less gun related deaths (Source: http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/). Australia is demonstrative that gun control does, in fact work (Source: http://www.sciencealert.com/20-year-review-of-australia-s-gun-laws-has-one-clear-finding-they-work).
Foxxhajti says There are many reasons why some countries have less crime/gun crime than America. There are some countries with lots of gun control like Mexico where murder and overall crime rates are higher than in America. In America cities with lots of gun laws have more murders and all around crimes than cities without them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
For the passed 20 years crime has been decreasing as gun ownership has been rising.
Guns are very frequently used to prevent crimes in America. They are used to prevent mass shotingshttp://kfor.Com/2016/06/30/shooter-strikes-3-in-south-carolina-nightclub-stopped-by-concealed-carrier/
"if there were actually stricter gun laws to begin with, you wouldn't need a firearm to defend yourself in the first place." Yes we would. Even with strict gun laws criminals would still get them and people would need guns to defend themselves from those armed criminals. Even if no criminals had guns we would still need gun to protect our selves, since criminals can commit crimes with out guns . I assume you are male, because of your avatar. Imagine being a female half your size and being attacked by a 6 foot 190 pound man. Even if the attacker didn't have a gun couldn't he easily overpower you with his body? Wouldn't you want a gun to defend your self? I don't really know what you're arguing for. I agree with background checks I just don't think guns should be banned. Banning gun in America is a stupid as hell idea. There are all ready so many guns among criminals so a gun ban would mean that we would still have armed criminals and unarmed good guys. If people had background checks before getting guns there would be less crazy and criminal people with guns. If a person is mentally stable and law abiding why can't they have a gun? As mentioned before guns are used for self defense and no law abiding person should be denied that. People don't randomly decide to kill them selves and others. The people who do these things are mentally unstable and should not have been able to get a gun. Besides being mentally stable and law abiding people getting guns should also be responsible and not keep loaded unlocked guns around children especially in their reach. Most parents who own guns are responsible. Out of the tens of millions of families who have guns a couple hundred children are accidentally shot a year.
"Household gun ownership doubles the risk of homicide and triples the risk of suicide for those with access to firearms." There is likely a third variable. Guns in the homes of criminal and mentally unstable people increase risk for homicide and suicide. Guns in the homes of responsible, law abiding and mentally stable people decrease those risks. "Also, people using guns as self-defense and people not using guns, both are roughly as likely to get injured" Does this include people who scare criminals away without shooting guns? Maybe they are as likely to be injured but the people with guns are less likely to be robbed, raped or killed. In some cases hiding or running away won't protect you, as the stronger criminal will be able to over power you or there is nowhere to go. When seconds count police are minutes away. Here are some cases where guns prevented and stop cries. http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=AWhKhHOjTOc[/youtube
Cities that allow Conceal and carry permits have lower crimes than cities without. There are many cases where conceal and carry permit holders prevent crimes with their guns.
Heterodox: No I wouldn't want to be unsafe and I don't think you should be unsafe or lose your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms...Just perhaps a few more common sense safety regulations in place to prevent some undesirable people from getting guns. You can agree with that can't you?
Throwback: Since having "good" people armed is a passion for you, perhaps you being in law enforcement could volunteer to teach gun safety and self control in tense situations? Also, wouldn't you consider that a few more safety checks would benefit who owns a gun? No one wants gun owners to lose that right.
@karlmarx59, No, I don't agree. I think we already have everything in place, for guns, that is necessary and it's too much as is. I think rather than coming up with more laws that aren't enforced we should probably just enforce the ones we already have.
Heterodox: Oh I am patently aware of rights being oppressed. The NRA will make sure gun right will never be oppressed. So really all of this is fodder for the people who want to live in a world with less guns.
@Dilara This, will be quite a long comment. First of all, I precisely said "developed countries". Mexico has 42% of its population living below poverty line. Apart from that, they have a bunch of drug-related issues and lots of them are poorly educated. These can all be factors that increase the crime rate of a country. In more developed countries with strict gun control, you can see that there are less crimes. I've already said that states with less guns have less crimes, and I've also sent you my source in an earlier comment I've made. In 2012, only 259 shootings were justifiable homicides. That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicide. The ratio of justifiable homicide to criminal homicide is 1:32 (Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf). The probability of getting killed by a gun when your country's gun laws are stricter, decreases dramatically. Strict gun laws obviously won't eliminate crime completely obviously, and criminals would still be able to occasionally obtain guns illegally. Thing is gun laws will reduce the amount of guns to be sold and will help prevent them from being sold to criminals and the mentally ill. Restricting guns may not immediately stop hardened criminals from obtaining weapons, but it would help stop insane and violent people from getting them easily. It would be incredibly harder for them to obtain guns. As it gets more risky to buy or sell guns, people will have a harder time getting their hands on them and overall gun-homicide deaths will decrease. 25 Americans are die everyday by being shot, which is horrendous for a developed country. Stronger gun laws may not prevent all shootings, but it is virtually inarguable that such laws would not reduce the number of gun crimes in the long term. In countries where there is more gun control, less mass shootings happen. I mean, countries like my own haven't even had a mass shooting once, while in the US, there are school shootings, and all that crazy stuff. I'm actually a female, and I personally have been able to defend myself in a few dangerous situations. I'm not that weak, personally. Women who live in a household with a firearm are 3.4 times more likely to be murdered then women who live in households without firearms (Source: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/womenfs.htm). Domestic violence is far more likely to result in death or serious injury when guns are present in a household; abuse is likely to involve guns and it is much more likely to escalate into serious physical harm. Beyond the statistical evidence, the idea that women require powerful firearms to be safe is just not logical. A lack of controls on guns may allow a woman to buy weapons for self-defense, but it also allows criminals to access said weapons—there is no exclusivity which guarantees that the women will be able to obtain a powerful weapon yet prevents the criminals from buying the very same weapons. Guns are more difficult to be able to dodge and run away from, since they're range weapons. While not always possible, it's definitely easier to run away from a melee weapon. I don't need a gun to defend myself, because my country actually has gun control, and it's quite a safe country. Not all of the people who kill themselves or others, with a gun, are mentally unstable. While mental illness can contribute to it, things like poverty, intense emotional pain, hormones drugs, being mistreated by others (or being bullied) and alcohol, pretty much impair an individual's line of thinking about this specific topic. Are the toddlers that kill others or themselves, mentally ill as well (Source: http://time.com/4311066/toddlers-guns-shoot-parents/ ) Not only is the argument that the mentally ill should be blamed for gun violence wrong, it is highly immoral. Many gun enthusiasts have begun suggesting a national registry of the mentally ill so that these people can be watched more carefully and those not on the list can remain free to awn weapons. A registry of the mentally ill violates virtually every privacy statute on the books (ex. HIPPAA) and could easily result in a “blacklist” similar to the ones that ruined people under accusations of communist sympathies. In addition to being immoral, such a database would likely have terrible unintended consequences. The fear of being labeled as mentally ill and put on a list would lead to fewer people seeking help for mental illnesses and risking placement on the list. While it is undeniable that some mentally ill individuals will always become violent and commit crimes, this does not mean that the solution is to victimize all mentally ill people for the sake of gun owners. Mandating the registration of the mentally ill while prohibiting the registration of dangerous weapons is simply hypocritical and indicative of a person who is willing to sacrifice the freedom of others to gain a little more personal convenience. Such arguments are not serious and should not be considered a rational alternative to gun control. If strong gun control legislation is passed, the severely mentally ill will be unable to obtain weapons with which to commit violence. By attacking gun violence from the weapons side, massacres can be prevented and the rights of the mentally ill can be maintained.
@Heterodox, if you're talking about the sources that correlate the gun death rate to household gun ownership/state gun laws: http://www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2014-confirms/ (this source shows that most states with more lax gun laws, have higher gun deaths), https://books.google.com.mt/books?id=iANw1pb4fPAC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=david+hemenway+"more+guns+in+a+community+lead+to+more+homicide"&source=bl&ots=GMTIi0MHC2&sig=x63NBQltDDNYkxHQeADfEl1EOis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2nQIVLiKFY6wyATa5YGoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=david%20hemenway%20%22more%20guns%20in%20a%20community%20lead%20to%20more%20homicide%22&f=false (a quote by David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's director), http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/, http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph& , http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/, https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/state-level-homicide-victimization-rates-in-the-us-in-relation-to-TNMKd0qUVn
@Heterodox Homicide, is a form of violent crime. "In the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force." Those sources point out homicide, which IS listed as a violent crime. More guns, as I've previously pointed out, lead to more domestic violence tragedies, in which women end up being killed (Source: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/womenfs.htm). Further evidence that more guns = more crime (Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681). Right-to-carry-weapons, increase crime; this includes aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder (Source: http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/).
@foxxhajti , Yes, homicide can be a violent crime, but violent crime is not limited to just homicide (as you yourself pointed out). || The claim is, by you and others, that more guns equal more crime (violent crime). You haven't shown that. In fact, I believe it was @karlmarx59, pointed out that the number of guns per capita is at an incredibly high number (nearly a 1:1 ratio I believe he said in his first post). Using the claim that more guns equal more crime, that would mean you would have to show that crime per capita is rising, that hasn't been done. In fact, crime has been going down (as the number of guns has been going up), as you can see in the table (2009-2013) in the following link (https://ucr.Fbi.Gov/crime-in-the-u.S/2013/crime-in-the-u.S.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final).
@Heterodox, your link says "page not found", for some reason, just wanted to inform you about that, I'll take your word for it though. Gun ownership in the US is actually in decline, I can agree with that (Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf) and what's increasing is the number of guns. My bad for wording it wrongly. What I was referring to, in most of my comments, is gun ownership. I should've been more precise with my wording. The decline in gun ownership, explains the decreasing crime rate, as less individuals, have more guns. The increase in guns, may possibly be linked to hunting in some cases, as hunters require different hunting rifles and most gun owners are also more likely to buy more than one gun. As gun ownership has not increased in tandem with the number of guns, it is not possible for the increase in guns to have contributed to the decrease in violent crime. For further clarification, the number of ownership per capita, matters more than the number of guns themselves. As increase in guns, would only result in more guns getting stolen every year, as millions of guns, are already stolen each year, and a great number of them, finish up in the wrong hands (Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm).
@foxxhajti, So you are talking about dispersion (number of people having guns vs total number of guns), like I did originally in my vote (and that was something the OP didn't seem to understand), even though my opinion is opposite yours - I want more dispersion (I want more people to own guns). However, why say that an increase in guns (not ownership) would equal more theft of guns, insinuating more guns would lead to an increase in crime? In other words, which is your argument: That more guns equal more crime or that More gun Ownership equals more crime?
My view is that crime rates are not effected by guns, the number of guns or gun ownership. I believe crime rates are related to a number of other factors: silly laws that make people criminals (war on drugs for example), economic conditions (can you legally get what you need to survive, and how easy is it to do, etc.), cultural and societal conditions (growing up in the hood, gangs, etc.), health issues (mental or otherwise), punishment (we have a terrible problem of leniency in this country, i.E., repeat offenders), ease of getting away with it (are victims armed, law enforcement efficiency and/or quantity, etc. ) etc. And as crimes go up or down based on those conditions so to will the number of guns used in crimes.
@Heterodox, I was mostly referring to gun ownership, I should have been more precise in the usage of my vocabulary. I still don't agree with the notion that random civilians should be allowed to have guns, unless they have a valid reason for it. I believe that people like police officers, and members of authority, are alright, also because most of the time, they're even well-trained to use their weapons. First of all, I believe that there should be more investment in education, as countries which are poorly educated, tend to have higher crime rates, possibly due to unemployment. I also believe that there should be an improvement on anti-poverty programs. More accessibility for mental health programs, can also help individuals which are suffering from mental illness, and possibly, help those who might've become a danger to the public, to get treatment. A lack of these, can be a factor in increasing crime rate, along with overall lax gun laws. A few measures that the US can take, so that it doesn't completely abolish gun ownership, since many Americans like owning guns, can be taking measures. What I mean by taking measures is, maybe making more stringent regulations on gun sellers, universal background checks, licensing, ammo controls, and assault weapon bans all make it harder for criminals. Thing is it's not the quantity of laws you make that truly matter, it's their quality. Perhaps, the US can adapt Swiss-like gun laws, or something along those lines. Crime rates, are effected by guns. I find it impressive how easy it is to obtain a gun in the US. Restrictions should be made, and the government, should try to reduce the crime rate, by also seeing other factors, not only by making strict gun laws. As gun laws themselves, aren't the only things that reduce crime, and countries like Mexico, are demonstrative of this. I hope you get the jist of what I mean.
@foxxhajti, They do have a valid reasons for it. Primarily, it's their right as a human being to defend themselves. ||
I have no issue with educating people, though I may have an issue with the government paying for that education (a separate debate). I do have an issue with oppressing someone's rights until they have been deemed "educated".
I disagree that we have lax guns laws, I would agree that we are far too lenient on punishment and/or enforcement of our current laws.
I disagree that we need more restrictions. And would argue that what we have is already too restrictive (a debate for another time).
I already disagreed that crime rates are increased by guns. In fact, as many as 2.5 million crimes are prevented because of guns, every single year (http://www.Pulpless.Com/gunclock/kleck2.Html).
I've already mentioned some ways I believe would reduce the crime rate: Decriminalize silly things (remove some laws),i.E., the war on drugs and other victimless crimes. Stop punishment leniency. Enforce current laws. More armed law-abiding citizens.
Unfortunately, I am most confused now than ever on why you stand where you do. I don't know the reasoning behind why you think what you do. I don't know what your argument is, if it's not one of the two I asked you about earlier.
@Heterodox, I don't see how bearing arms, is a right. You claim that it's a right because it allows a person to defend himself yet in the US, they're barely used for that reason. As I've mentioned earlier in this comment thread, only 230 were justifiable homicides, in 2010, while in the same year, there were 8,275 firearm homicides (Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf). I've also mentioned that the justifiable homicide to criminal homicides ratio is 1:36. Between 2007 and 2011, only 0.8 percent of violent crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. During the same five year period, only 0.1 percent of attempted or completed property crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. Given that between 40-45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it’s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense. Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010. (Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#) || I think you misunderstood me regarding the education issue. I said, "First of all, I believe that there should be more investment in education, as countries which are poorly educated, tend to have higher crime rates, possibly due to unemployment." What I meant is that poor education contributes to crime, as it increase the possibility of unemployment, or having a job with an unsustainable salary (Not a source, but has some information about the poor education Americans are receiving: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16051) (This is a source: http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf). Investing in education, can improve the economy (Not necessarily a source, but shows some examples why it would: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/education-training-advantages.asp). Education also increases the standard of living. Investing in education can also reduce the need for welfare in certain households. If not making education completely free, making it more accessible by at least, lowering college fees (for example), is a must. || What you have is too restrictive? Say that to the victims of the approximate 372 mass shootings that happened last year (Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) and the 33,636 who die every year due to firearms. 2.5 million crimes are prevented because of guns? That claim has been debunked before. The 2.5 million claim has almost become some type of gospel for the National Rifle Association, conservative politicians, and scholars like John Lott. The study used to arrive to that conclusion, has a social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer. Gun owners can respond strategically, mostly since there are 3 million members in the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use. Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use. These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. There's also another nonsensical study of Kleck and Gertz. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Gertz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Gertz. However, people were only present at home during the burglaries 27.6% of the time, out of all of the burglaries and only 7.2% of those were violent crimes (Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf). This makes those claims mathematically impossible. Also, police came when notified, in 84.8% of the cases (Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf), which makes owning weapons for self defense, more seemingly useless. || I agree with some of the things you've said in this particular statement, about the reduction of crime, especially regarding the war on drugs and other victimless crimes and punishment leniency. Your enforcement about current laws statement is a bit vague, so I'm not quite sure about that. I still don't believe that arming random civilians is a good idea. || In my ideal utopia, guns would be completely restricted, as countries like my own would afford that, since a majority of us is used to not owning firearms already. The US, on the other hand, has this somewhat cultural phenomenon, that almost glorifies guns. Since most American citizens are used to having guns, to avoid any major backlash from the public, I suppose it would be better if they don't just restrict guns completely, and instead pose restrictions. My conclusion is, that more restrictions should be made regarding gun laws, the government should try to tackle the issues I've mentioned earlier, and put more measures. I don't see how getting a gun with more measures and restrictions, to ensure the safety of the public, is too restrictive. If you would fit in the criteria of their restrictions, you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
@TheChristian...This police officer never, NEVER, feared an armed law abiding citizen, even in an antagonistic scenario. Law abiding people do not use firearms to settle arguments, despite the depictions of the American west. I am also aware that if somehow the U.S. Constitution were amended to outlaw firearms, no police officer would be any safer, and law abiding citizens would be much more endangered, because the criminals would alone take comfort in the knowledge that law abiding people are disarmed. The genie does not go back into the bottle. Firearms exist and criminals will always have them. Criminals will make firearms in their tool sheds if they can't buy them. It's not that difficult anymore. The pseudo intellectuals just can't get their heads around the fact that those intent on murder are not going to hesitate to use a firearm for fear of breaking the law!
@foxxhajti, "...Barely used.." for defense you say? Did you miss that potential 2.5 million (yearly) figure I mentioned? || I agreed with you, partially, on education. Education is good. I just disagree that it should be government funded (and don't particularly feel like debating the government funding issue in this thread).|| Kleck's study hasn't been debunked, it's been argued against. However, even Hemenway's study estimates 100,000 DGU's a year and some other studies put it around 250,000-370,000 a year (http://www.Bloomberg.Com/news/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense).|| I do not believe in "arming" random civilians, I believe that any civilian has the right to be armed (assuming they are not disqualified, disqualification can be debated as well in another thread). || I do not believe in a utopia. I have no idea of how one could even function alongside freedom, creatively, compassion, etc. However, for the sake of argument - in mine crime wouldn't exist. Without crime guns would seen as the tools they are by everyone.|| I think the U.S. likes to glorify a lot of rights and/or freedoms, most especially because they tend to have more than most other countries. However, there are a lot of people that want to change that.
@reece, Not entirely sure why you wanted me to watch that. I agree that education is important and I agree that we suck at it, but the reason I think we suck at it is because it's ran, the majority, by the government (k-12). The (U.S.) government is incompetent compared to the free market. It kills competition, it chokes the life out of ingenuity and progress. ||Also, I completely disagree with Kaku's argument about H-1B Visas (though probably a debate for another thread).
@reece...Thank you for correcting me. That was one of the most reasonable, logical, articulate, critically thought through positions I have ever seen taken. Or, you are just very juvenile, you need to get out less, and read more.
@Heterodox (I'll try to hold back my anger) What do you think regulates the free market -- It's supposed to be the government. The market sure as hell doesn't regulate itself. The government becomes corrupt when it gets bought by corporate entities. What do you think those corporate entities want... Perhaps a monopoly?
@reece, There is nothing wrong with making money, but when your only concern is to make money, I'd say you are corrupt inherently. I would not say that it's an incentive, though, money is the incentive, how it's made is irrelevant.
@Heterodox Oh look at that, we found common ground. Let's build on it. So would you say the free market is inherently corrupt? I would disagree that 'how money is made is irrelevant.' Money can be made by dodgy investments and kept offshore to swerve tax.
@reece, I would not say that the free market is inherently corrupt, because it also relies on people. I tend to believe that people, not all, value other things over money, at least a certain amount of money. Obviously, the higher the amount of money the more they are willing to trade things for it (eventually we call this corruption).
@karlmarx59 Thank you || @Heterodox This, once again makes the 2.5 million claim impossible (Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf). Quote from that same source, "The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. [...] The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: more than 33,000 dead, more than 81,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives traumatized and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense." Hemenway's study, also found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat. What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent). These results were similar to previous research on older NCVS data which showed that, while using a firearm in self-defense did lower a person’s risk of subsequent injury, it was less effective than using any weapon other than a gun (Source: https://books.google.com.mt/booksid=04Y3AwAAQBAJ&q=ncvs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22self-protective%20action%22&f=false), (Another Source: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full). Statistically speaking, owning a gun endangers you more than it protects you (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/). Compare the 13 justifiable shootings to the 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. || As a person whose country has gun control, I can tell you from experience, that it's way safer, and criminals are less likely to obtain guns illegally. Most deaths here probably result from melee weapons, which are definitely easier to run away from than a range weapon, like a firearm. || I don't believe that bearing arms is a right. Owning a gun is a privilege. You probably think that owning a gun is a right, due to your second amendment, even though the second amendment has been made for different reasons. The Second Amendment is no longer a necessary means of self-preservation, as perhaps it might've been in a rural, agrarian, semi-hostile, slave-holding, post-colonial America. Due to the absence of hazards from the late 18th Century, it's strictly become a means of protecting the availability of a retail product. Guns are a product that people don't absolutely have to own in order for democracy and liberty to flourish. Therefore, the original intention of the second amendment, is pretty much dead. || The human freedom index, in the US, is ranked the 20th, overall;but only 31st for personal freedom (Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/daniel-mitchell/us-barely-cracks-top-20-ranking-nations-overall-freedom). My country, according to those ranks, is actually more free than the US, funnily enough. My county ranks 16th in the overall human freedom index and 16th in personal freedom. Most of the countries in those lists are European, and most of them also have gun control. Just some food for thought.
@foxxhajti, Any rankings that have China ahead of the U.S. on freedom, can't be taken seriously. Any rankings that have Countries without even the freedom of speech higher than the U.S. on freedom, can't be taken seriously. || As for guns, it seems pretty clear we are at a fundamental disagreement, I believe it is a right you believe it is a privilege. No amount of evidence or statistics will change that (at least on my end), so continuing to discuss it seems a pointless endeavor. || Also, you have some very serious misconceptions about the intentions of the founders. The founders would be disgusted at what America is today.
@Heterodox: to your last reply, I would add a massive "Amen". Gun ownership in America is right that doesn't need justification-that is the nature of a right. Outsiders have a hard time understanding the self determination concept of our true freedom, at least as it existed for a while. You are right. Our republic has been thoroughly corrupted by the socialist nanny state.
Foxxhajti Criminals in America get drugs and other things illegally. If guns are banned they would get guns illegally So we would have armed criminals and unarmed civilians. Since criminals here will always have guns non criminals need guns for protection. Even without a gun a criminal can commit a crime against a weaker victim. So even if you could take guns away from criminals law abiding people would still need them. States with less guns all around might have less crimes. Because that includes states with less guns amongst criminals. But cities in the US with less gun control have less crimes than cities with lots of gun control. Imagine if the whole country had the same gun laws as Chicago or Baltimore. Imagine how much more crime the US would have without guns. I gave you plenty of examples of guns being used to prevent and stop crimes. Imagine if the potential victims in those cases didn't have guns to defend them selves. Not all cases where guns are used in self defense involve a justifiable homicide. In some cases the attacker is shot not killed and in some cases the attacker is simply scared away. I agree with background checks but banning guns is absurd once you realize how often they are used to prevent crimes. America has 300 million guns so its a little late to start banning guns anyways. Criminals already have guns and will be able to get them very easily They wouldn't just get them occasionally they would get them very very easily. And than armed criminals would commit crimes against unarmed civilians. Most criminals get their guns illegally anyways, so while background checks will stop some gun crimes they won't stop most gun crimes. It would still be easy to get guns on the black market, like it is to get drugs for example. Background checks would stop many mass shootings but not all, as we have so many guns one can get illegally all ready.
Most of the 25 Americans who die every day of being shot COMMIT SUICIDE. Of the people who were murdered by guns 75% were killed in a gang related conflict. Gangsters will not stop getting guns because of gun control. Just like the war on drugs hasn't stopped them from getting drugs. A way to stop all this gang related gun violence is to continue the stop and frisk policy that NYC has. This way criminals are less likely to carry guns on them and if they do they are more likely to have those guns taken away. Most gun crimes are not school shootings, they are gang related shootings.
How about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who use guns to defend them selves and save lives. Those instances outnumber gun deaths.
Women who live in a house with a gun are more likely to be murdered than other women? I believe that. But is it the gun that makes them more likely to be murdered or is it a third variable? If a woman lives with an abusive man, a gun in the house would be dangerous, but if she lives alone or with a non absive husband, having a gun in the house decreases her risk of homicide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jURuXjjJ8[/youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg[/youtub
Women are physically weaker than men and since most criminals are men, women who live in high crime areas need guns to defend them selves, should a criminal ever attack them. Guns are easier to defend your self with, especially if you are female. Again I agree with background checks so that abusive men, criminals and mentally unstable people could not get guns. There are ways to allow law abiding people to get guns for self defense but not criminals. Hopefully background checks would not just stop unstable people from getting them but other types who shouldn't have guns. Mental illness is not the only reason people kill with guns, but it is the main case for mass shootings. I never said that te mentally ill are to blame for most shootings. Most shootings are actually gang related and done by people who are not mentally ill. A registry for the mentally ill is absurd. I never suggested that. I am also against a gun registration as that makes it easier for the government to take away guns from people who deserve to have them. As for the toddlers who shoot people, thats due to irresponsible parenting. And while that does happen, it is more common for families with children to defend them selves with guns.
Guns do not cause people to kill they are a tool that allows people to kill. So while I AGREE WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS I believe that attacking the reasons for killings would prevent more of them.
Karlmarx59: Part of your anti-gun argument is that "more guns result in criminals having easier access to them." So if that's true, then why should the REST of society be "sitting ducks?" Why not level the playing field and keep ourselves and families SAFE from these "criminals?"